Conquer Club

I have been playing games. When truces are made, people seemed to be upset when they are broken. That's understandable. However, what if you can win a game with 90%+ confidence by breaking a truce? I understand if you break a truce for something insignificant like a bonus or something...but the game?

I think that if keeping a truce will cause you to lose the game definitively, then it is understandable to break it. Other than that, I would have to call foul. You make a deal with an opponent, you should stick to the terms, period. I would consider getting a win in this fashion to be an underhanded win.

Kiron wrote:I have been playing games. When truces are made, people seemed to be upset when they are broken. That's understandable. However, what if you can win a game with 90%+ confidence by breaking a truce? I understand if you break a truce for something insignificant like a bonus or something...but the game?

In my view, as coach Herm Edwards once famously said..."We play to win the game!". If you're CERTAIN that you will win the game, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to break the truce. The other guy surely would understand that and if he doesn't, he's not looking at the situation objectively. I would expect the other guy to do the same. Now, sometimes that "certainty" fails because of the dice - that's unavoidable, but the situation should still be obvious. That being said, the other guy also has a RESPONSIBILITY to claim foul in an effort to rally support against you in that game...but it should be only due to the necessity of trying to stop you.

Since this game Game 1590682.I have only agreed to border truces.I'm not in the game of letting players win.
He basically held the game objective and I had to stop him.When I did it lead to foe list and all sorts.

KoE_Sirius wrote:Since this game Game 1590682.I have only agreed to border truces.I'm not in the game of letting players win.
He basically held the game objective and I had to stop him.When I did it lead to foe list and all sorts.

Foeing someone for employing good strategy to win a game is retarded.

"There can be only one"

Kiron wrote:I have been playing games. When truces are made, people seemed to be upset when they are broken. That's understandable. However, what if you can win a game with 90%+ confidence by breaking a truce? I understand if you break a truce for something insignificant like a bonus or something...but the game?

Agreed. If you can win the game by breaking the truce, then it needs to be understood when you do. I do believe however, that you should post what you are doing and why as a courtesy to the other player, but not until after you've done it

i think it is a back stab. that's life tho people break deals all the time you just need to grow a pair.

Woodruff wrote:Foeing someone for employing good strategy to win a game is retarded.

? Retarded ? Care to explain what that is supposed to mean..

Carebian Knight wrote:

Kiron wrote:I have been playing games. When truces are made, people seemed to be upset when they are broken. That's understandable. However, what if you can win a game with 90%+ confidence by breaking a truce? I understand if you break a truce for something insignificant like a bonus or something...but the game?

Agreed. If you can win the game by breaking the truce, then it needs to be understood when you do. I do believe however, that you should post what you are doing and why as a courtesy to the other player, but not until after you've done it

I can agree with pointing out why you did it, sure...that makes sense and might help to avoid the hurt feelings.

danfrank wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Foeing someone for employing good strategy to win a game is retarded.

? Retarded ? Care to explain what that is supposed to mean..

Find a dictionary. Retarded: characterized by slowness or limitation in intellectual or emotional development. You could also see "pussified" and "chickenshit".

Woodruff wrote:

danfrank wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Foeing someone for employing good strategy to win a game is retarded.

? Retarded ? Care to explain what that is supposed to mean..

Find a dictionary. Retarded: characterized by slowness or limitation in intellectual or emotional development. You could also see "pussified" and "chickenshit".

It so not funny to compare these three words in the same context.Besides the latter 2 are not words at all.

KoE_Sirius wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

danfrank wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Foeing someone for employing good strategy to win a game is retarded.

? Retarded ? Care to explain what that is supposed to mean..

Find a dictionary. Retarded: characterized by slowness or limitation in intellectual or emotional development. You could also see "pussified" and "chickenshit".

It so not funny to compare these three words in the same context.Besides the latter 2 are not words at all.

In my view, it absolutely is "emotionally limited" to foe someone because they employ good strategy. I would also state that it is just as absolutely "pussified" and "chickenshit". And I used them, so they are words! Ha. <chuckle>

well yeah it is a bit daft. lol

I would only ever enter a truce if it was to help me win the game. Invariably that means breaking it at some point... Anyone who raises a C&A report over a broken truce is a class A moron.

I know this isn't the suggestion forum, but a possible fix for this could be to implement a 'Trustworthiness' rating along with the other ratings that people are given? I realize that 'Fair Play' is probably supposed to cover this, but I don't think that many people really realize that...plus, it would be a more useful piece of information to have than the majority of the other ratings...

rathmaskalion wrote:I know this isn't the suggestion forum, but a possible fix for this could be to implement a 'Trustworthiness' rating along with the other ratings that people are given? I realize that 'Fair Play' is probably supposed to cover this, but I don't think that many people really realize that...plus, it would be a more useful piece of information to have than the majority of the other ratings...

What really makes "Trustworthiness" a more accurate indicator of this sort of thing than "Fair Play", though? It seems to me that "Fair Play" or "Cheap Tactics" cover this perfectly well.

'Fair play', it would seem, includes aspects such as secret diplomacy... 'Cheap Tactics' would cover it, but it requires another mouse click to see (which a lot of people are probably too lazy to do) Just a thought.

rathmaskalion wrote:'Fair play', it would seem, includes aspects such as secret diplomacy... 'Cheap Tactics' would cover it, but it requires another mouse click to see (which a lot of people are probably too lazy to do) Just a thought.

Another mouse click? Oh...you must have your monitor on a lower resolution.

Woodruff wrote:

rathmaskalion wrote:'Fair play', it would seem, includes aspects such as secret diplomacy... 'Cheap Tactics' would cover it, but it requires another mouse click to see (which a lot of people are probably too lazy to do) Just a thought.

Another mouse click? Oh...you must have your monitor on a lower resolution.

or playing on an Iphone. lol

OK, think about it... First, you need to click on the person's rating score...which would give you the three ratings as well as the overall average... Then you scroll down to see the individual ratings as well as any of the buzzwords attached to them... Then, if the person has more than one page, you have to click to get through that. For a relatively new player, this may not be so straightforward. Please think things through before making fun of the poster.

I've tried to think it through, but I'm not sure I understand you. Are you talking about the rating page, where all the ratings people have left you are? Or about the page where someone produces the rating in the first place?

Because when I leave someone a rating for Fair Play, Game Play and Attitude and then I want to attach some tags, it's not very hard to find those tags. No extra mouseclick or whatever. It's very straightforward, for new players too.

If the person has more than 1 page, you say. I guess you mean the pages of ratings people have left you, but once a player is advanced enough in how this site works to find that rating page, he'll find the second and third page as well, if he really wants to.

rathmaskalion wrote:OK, think about it... First, you need to click on the person's rating score...which would give you the three ratings as well as the overall average... Then you scroll down to see the individual ratings as well as any of the buzzwords attached to them... Then, if the person has more than one page, you have to click to get through that. For a relatively new player, this may not be so straightforward. Please think things through before making fun of the poster.

I did think it through. You're not making any sense.

"Oathbreaker" or something of that nature should be one of the available tags. "Cheap tactics" probably covers it, sure, but it could also mean a lot of other things too.

Dukasaur wrote:"Oathbreaker" or something of that nature should be one of the available tags. "Cheap tactics" probably covers it, sure, but it could also mean a lot of other things too.

What about "Backstabber"? That's already one of the options - seems pretty obvious to me.